Encouraging you to vote yes on California’s Prop 8

This seems to be the big new argument out there now. Advocates of same-sex marriage are claiming that forbidding homosexual couples is just like the discriminatory laws that didn’t allow interracial marriages.

I can see where this argument is coming from, at least. I still don’t think it’s the same thing, however, and here’s why.

People of different races are all the same on the inside. Genetically, there is no difference between a black man and a white woman. They are the same. Our discrimination laws originated to prevent us from discriminating against someone on the basis of their outward appearance: gender, age, race. Proscribing interracial marriage was based on the outward appearance, but there was no reason to forbid those people to marry.

Same-sex couples, however, are a different matter. There is an obvious genetic difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples – two women or two men are not the same as one woman and one man. We’ll also have to get back into why people are gay, here: is it choice, or is it a genetic abnormality?

If it is choice, then these couples are choosing an alternative lifestyle. They are choosing to deviate from what society considers normal. People are free to choose to live alternative lifestyles, but they do have to live with the consequences. Americans don’t seem to like the fact that their actions have consequences, especially when those consequences are negative. That’s why we’re in this economic crisis. It is not any one individual’s fault; Americans chose to overspend, banks overextended themselves, and no one was prepared for the consequences.

So when a gay couple has a relationship, what are some of the consequences? Well, they can’t procreate, for starters. Gay couples have higher rates of STDs, including AIDS. Gay couples tend to be less stable. And, up until recently, they were not allowed to marry. When they made the choice to live that lifestyle, they were aware of that consequence. Is it good for society as a whole to let gay couples get married, to teach our children that homosexuality is equal to hetersexuality, to perpetuate a condition that is, at heart, an aberration from the norm? Assuming that it is a chosen behavior, the more we teach our small children about how great and wonderful homosexuality is, the more people will choose it. Eventually, society dies out when its population growth declines too far.

What if we argue instead that people are not gay by choice, but that it is a genetic tendency and we shouldn’t “punish” them for being made that way by forbidding them to marry? This goes back to the interracial marriage argument – if these couples are genetically different, genetically “flawed” according to mainstream society because of their homosexual tendencies, then they are not genetically equal to a heterosexual couple. They are not the same, and do not merit the same privileges. Marriage isn’t just about a couple who love each other; it is a societal contract. Marriages are about more than declaring one’s love for one’s spouse to the world; it is a bond that declares you are responsible for one another, you are responsible for your children, and you acknowledge your children as your own. Marriages were created to organize families, not to validate lovers’ feelings.

If we allow same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is discriminatory to prevent any two people who love each other from getting married, then it is only one more step to incest. It is only one more step to legalizing marrying children who are too young to be married. Beyond that, it is only one step further to legalizing polygamy. After all, these people all just love each other, right? What’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with that, is that gay marriage, incest, child marriages, and polygamy, are not good for society. They are bad for society because of their effects on the gene pool, and they are bad for society because of their social effects. When we tear down the traditional family, we tear down the last place our children are safe from the world. By making marriage all about the couple and forgetting about the children, as society has been doing for the last several decades, we wound our children terribly. Look at divorce rates; look at fatherless children; look at gang violence; look at teenage promiscuity and teenage pregnancy rates. All these things are on the rise, because we’ve become selfish as a society. We are all about Me, My, Mine. Marriage ought to be about creating a home for our families, not about personal gratification. Perhaps there would be less adultery if we stopped to remember that – it’s not just about meeting an individual’s sexual needs (or, more often, wants). It’s about providing security for each other, providing emotional support, providing a refuge, a safe haven. It’s about responsibility. It’s about providing a safe place for children to grow up, taking care of their needs, until they are ready to go out into the world. And as much as they may want to, two moms or two dads will never be equal to a mom and a dad in their abilities to raise a child.

Has surprised me. I knew opponents of 8 would be unhappy, of course, but the extremity of the opposition has, yet again, astounded me.

Apparently, Mormons are SOLELY to blame for the passing of Proposition 8. The Mormon church is, according to these people, bigoted and hateful. All becase the LDS church encouraged its people to vote in favor of what many would consider a moral issue.

I had been wondering on what exactly the statistics were, and I found Bird’s blog post here that has exactly the information I was looking for. She clearly shows that the LDS population was not solely responsible for the passing of Prop 8.

And I’ll try to clarify our church’s involvement a little, in case you were wondering. Our Prophet did encourage us to support Proposition 8. However, nothing was required of anyone. Members were free to vote according to their own conscience, as they always are. Church funds were never used to support the issue. Money came from individual members of the church who felt like they wanted to donate to the cause. Church buildings were never used to house activities supporting Prop 8. We did not discuss activities surrounding the campaign in church. Church time, money, and land WAS NOT USED to support the campaign. Church MEMBERS used their own money, tim, and homes to organize and participate in the campaign as they saw fit.

We are a religious people. We have the freedom of religion granted to every American. We also have the right to vote according to our beliefs, and the right to express our political opinions and support any political campaign that we want to.

And if I still see protesters outside of the temple at my sister’s wedding in a few weeks, I am going to be VERY VERY ANGRY. The temple is, to us, a house of the Lord. Literally. It is a place of peace and spiritual devotion. To assault us on holy ground is offensive to me. Especially since no one is bothering the Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or Protestant churches who also supported Proposition 8. Protesting outside our temples does nothing other than upset and offend individuals who may or may not have supported the Proposition 8 campaign, and infringe on OUR constitutional right to practice our religion.

Maybe, instead of protesting and harrassing people, proponents of gay marriage could find a more constructive way to try to get their way? Search for a compromise, instead of attacking people who may not have had anything to do with it? Just a thought.

I’ve been debating with myself for a while now on whether or not to post this. Not because I’m afraid of offending anyone – because I’m pretty sure I already have; but because it’s a bit personal. And I know lots of the people that read this blog. But I feel like I should make every effort I can to persuade anyone out there who is still undecided to vote in favor of Proposition 8, to preserve marriage between a man and a woman.

I’ve heard many opponents of Prop 8 use this argument: Homosexuality is a genetic impulse in many people; they were just “made that way” so why should we punish them by depriving them of the right to marry the one they love?

For starters, I don’t believe that outlawing gay marriage is depriving anyone of rights. Sorry, but you never had that right in the first place, until 4 of 7 judges decided to create a new law by overturning the vote of an overwhelming majority of Californians.

But here’s my main point: Even if we do accept the premise that at least some people are “naturally” gay – even though studies show that environment and upbringing do have a large impact on one’s sexuality – why does that make it a good thing? We have many natural impulses that are contradictory to the good of society, and we don’t legalize those behaviors just to cater to those individuals who have those impulses and act on them.

I’ll give you a few examples: A man “naturally” has a worse temper than other men. His anger management issues lead him to harm his family. Does he get out of trouble for his behavior and the harm he has done to those around him because he is genetically predisposed to be angry?

Some people are more likely to be overweight because of their genetic makeup. My brother is one of these. I am honestly afraid that he will die within the next ten years if he doesn’ drastically change his lifestyle. He is 31. Is it alright for him to just give up and say, I’m genetically predisposed to be obese, and everyone around me should just accept that fact? Should we all be content to watch him slowly die of his own self-neglect?

What about mothers who abuse drugs while they are pregnant and their babies are born with severe problems and drug addictions? Shouldn’t we help the baby fight the addiction rather than simply saying “it’s natural, so it’s ok”?

What about men whose inability to control themselves and their libido turns them into rapists, pedophiles, child abusers, and child pornography addicts? It’s natural for a man to have stronge sexual desires, isn’t it? But the way these men express their behaviors is harmful to society as a whole. Shouldn’t we punish them, even though sex drive is a completely natural human behavior?

And here’s the personal example I promised you: I have depression. It runs very strongly in my family on one side. I have struggled with it since I was about ten years old, I would guess, but I wasn’t diagnosed with it until I was in college. My life as a teenager was extremely difficult, and I never understood why I was so different until many years later. I am genetically predisposed to the condition because of my family heritage. It makes me sad, angry, anxious, and lethargic. Sometimes all at once. There are days when it is a struggle just for me to get out of bed.

But I do it. Why? Because I love my family more. I have two small daughters to take care of, and a husband I love dearly. I support him by taking care of our children and our home. If it were just me, there are probably days where I would lie in bed and do nothing at all except let myself be sad.

I can’t indulge in that type of behavior, even though I want to sometimes. First, I know it is bad for me. Second, I know it is bad for my family. Third, I know it is bad for society – I have something to contribute to my neigborhood, my church, my city, and my state. I am responsible for more than just myself. The natural impulses that come with depression are quite strong, but my love for my family is stronger. I know that if I give in to those impulses, I would be hurting my family.

So my depression is natural. It’s genetic. I can’t help it.

I am left with a choice: do I give into my natural impulses, or do I fight it and do what is best for those around me?

And just because I have this “natural” condition, would that make it right if I did lie in bed all day and neglect my children?

Obviously not. It would be understandable, but it still wouldn’t be right.

So stop complaining that homosexuality is natural and we need to make concessions for gay people. We all have things that we are fighting, our own internal demons, but we still have to be responsible members of society, concerned with the greater good before our own desires.

Card writes about how we should be able to disagree respectfully, and why the LDS Church opposes legalizing gay marriage. His point that really caught my eye, though, was this:

“I speak from experience: My family and I have close friends who are gay, some of whom have entered into lawful marriages. They know we don’t agree that their relationship is the same thing or should have the same legal status as our marriage, but we all accept that strong and clear difference of opinion and move on, continuing to respect and love each other for the values we share.

Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they called me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of “tolerance.”

Tolerance implies disagreement — it means that even though we don’t agree with or approve of each others beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren’t being tolerant, we’re being uniform.

It’s uniformity or submission these former friends wanted, not tolerance at all.”

You might object and say that this refers only to Orson Scott Card’s understanding of the word tolerance. But you’d be wrong. Here’s what the dictionary has to say under the entry “tolerance”:

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.

Tolerance, therefore, can only exist when we agree to disagree. Some gays are opposing Proposition 8 under the guise of desiring tolerance from heterosexuals. However, the ones doing the name-calling and vandalizing signs are more often opponents of Prop 8 than not. Legalizing gay marriage; requiring that we treat it the same as heterosexual marriage; teaching it as the same in school; suing photographers, doctors, newspapers, adoption agencies, and newspapers for expressing a different opinion and standing by their religions; threatening to even remove the people’s right to vote on the issue in San Diego… None of these things sound like tolerance to me. This is not peaceful co-existence. This is not agreeing, politely, to disagree. This is attempting to force the opinion and habits and standards of a vocal minority on the majority of the population under the guise of “rights” – even though the right to marry is not protected, and establishing gay marriage directly contradicts existing federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which states: DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws.

How can forcing the 96% of the population that isn’t gay to endorse homosexuality truly be considered tolerance? Gay activists aren’t fighting for tolerance of their behavior. Their rights are already protected as domestic partners under the California family code. They gain nothing by marriage, except the validation of the rest of the community, and the ability to force others to support their beliefs. Legalizing gay marriage does not gain them more rights; all it does is undermine our society and confuse gender issues until we are all one homogenized, featureless lump. They are fighting to PROMOTE A GAY LIFESTYLE. Not for tolerance. If they were so big on tolerance, perhaps they’d be a little more TOLERANT of their opposition. You know, those of us who are out there fighting for our children, our educational system, our right to parent our children and teach them our own morals, our religious freedom, our freedom of speech, and the rights of future generations of children to be born into a home with a mother and a father who love them and are socially responsible to them.

So you’ve probably seen the No on 8 TV ads by now which state that there is nothing in the law that requires children to be taught about marriage in school. Technically, this is a true statement. What they aren’t telling voters, though, is that schools do teach about marriage. Here’s the facts from the California Board of Education website:

(This comes from an article here: ) Most interestingly, BOE President Mitchell seems unaware of guidelines on his own Web site, which state that 96 percent of school districts accept the technically voluntary sex education curriculum. Further, the California Department of Education (CDE) Web site notes specifically that in the 96 percent of school districts that do accept the curriculum, they are REQUIRED to include instruction and materials that “teach respect for marriage.”

So 96% of California schools teach sex ed. The schools that teach the established curriculum about sex ed are required to teach about marriage. So, in essence, at least 96% of California schools will be required to teach about homosexual marriage if Proposition 8 fails. I think that qualifies as lying by omission for sure.

I found this interesting as well. It comes from the California curriculum guide about health education: The approach of this framework is to encourage districts to work with parents and community members in developing curriculum, especially in the area of family living. The intent of the curriculum in this content area is not to invade the privacy of families and their right to teach values to their children but to assist families in teaching about family living and encourage effective family communication.

So California’s guide concerning health and sex ed says that they should respect family values. Yet I still worry about what is going to be taught in schools if Prop 8 fails. Conservative parents will be upset if homosexuality is taught as prevalently as it is in Massachussets schools; gay parents will protest if their lifestyle isn’t taught, if Prop 8 fails. And which side do you think the (cough – LIBERAL) judges and CTA will choose?

Wow. I’m horrified at this newest news article that has come out about homosexuality being taught in elementary schools. Why in the world we need to be teaching 5 year olds about gender issues is beyond me. Children are so easily confused by so many things at that age; throwing homosexuality at them is incomprehensible to me. Most of these kids aren’t going to face their own sexuality for several more years. Why not present information to them at that time? Why teach our kindergarteners about it? I would be horrified if my child came home from kindergarten one day and said they had learned about sex in school that day. Why are they teaching about sexuality of ANY type? And why are they ONLY teaching about homosexuality? Why not teach heterosexuality also, if you’re going to get into the issue?

So parents of children at this public – yes, public – school in Sacramento find out that their 5 year old children are being taught to be pro-gay. They are having a “Coming out day” tomorrow. Parents were not told, the event wasn’t listed on online calendars, and the event is being held almost two weeks after the traditional “Coming out day” that is observed in high schools. Sure sounds like SOMEONE is trying to sneak something into the curriculum to me.

And before anyone jumps on my case, I will state my opinion that there is a big difference between teaching children to be tolerant of gays and teaching them to be pro-gay. In my view, being tolerant in this case simply means accepting that someone chooses a different lifestyle than the majority. Being pro-gay is actively promoting a gay lifestyle, and teaching our children that it is just as good as a heterosexual lifestyle. Studies have shown that gay relationships are less stable; homosexual practices account for more new instances of STDs; homosexual people engage in sex with more partners, thus furthering the spread of diseases and leading to unstable personal relationships; and homosexual relationships even have a stronger tendency toward violent behavior than heterosexual ones. Does that sound just as good to you? It doesn’t to me.

Vote YES on Proposition 8! Please, remember, the failure of Proposition 8 will have dire consequences for our children.

The Constitution that eventually followed the Declaration was the Founders’ effort to frame a government that accomplished what the Declaration (and natural law) required. Seen in this light, the “Bill of Rights,” comprising the first ten amendments to the Constitution, should be perceived as a further enumeration of the rights of the people vis-?-vis the subservient government they had created and therefore as a list of limitations on the authority of government (including the judiciary), not as a list of rights granted to the people by the government, in the tradition of King John and the Magna Carta.[18] The Constitution is devoid of any reference to authority in the courts, for example, to create new law out of whole cloth, as in Roe or Lawrence, or to disregard and overrule the expressed will of the people on moral questions, as in Romer and In re Marriage Cases, let alone to install as the foundation of our laws a moral philosophy other than natural law. Indeed, their use of the word “unalienable” suggests the depth of their conviction on this point.

That the United States’ government (including the courts) was created under a limited delegation of authority from the people is further made clear by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which reserve to the people and the States, respectively, all rights not delegated from the sovereign people to the federal government. Activist judges and justices, who take it upon themselves to create law or to substitute other ideas for the natural law foundation of our legal system, thwart this foundational framework and can be seen as usurping the natural law rights of the people, an “unconstitutional” act of the most serious kind. […]

It is critically important that we remember that the effects of natural law limitations on the government differ in one material way from their effect on the people. Both are limited by natural law restrictions, but the government must perceive its limitations as a matter of deference to the superior “individual rights” of the people, whereas people experience their “rights” as freedom limited by social, interpersonal duties. If we were to make the mistake of perceiving individual morality in terms of enforcing “my individual rights” against others, for example, rather than only against the government, it is doubtful that my duties and obligations will be foremost on my mind. […]

The American Founders recognized these principles as moral truths, but others have perceived them, as well. As one jurist in the United Kingdom, Sir John Laws, recently observed,

A society whose values are defined by reference [solely] to individual rights is by that very fact already impoverished. Its culture says nothing about individual duty – nothing about virtue . . . Accordingly, rights must be put in their proper place. […]

Thus, at the inter-personal level of society, natural law morality has fundamentally to do with self control and self-governance in our relations with others, with how we treat other people.[22] The American founders recognized this relationship. John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[23] James Madison: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea;”[24] and “If all men were angels, no government would be necessary.”[25] Benjamin Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”[26] George Washington: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. . . . Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” […]

While “we the people” may, as a society, decide that certain harmful activities and behaviors can be “tolerated,” and therefore either decriminalize them or not strictly enforce laws against them, such “tolerance-based rights” (for lack of a better term) must never be mistaken for the “fundamental rights” granted by natural law. […]

Nowhere in society are our pivotal responsibilitiestoward others more on display or more vitally important than in our marriages and families. Marriage is perhaps the last refuge of voluntary duty- and obligation-based morality in our society, and it goes well beyond the minimal duty “not to harm,” but is rather a commitment to seek to benefit others – spouse and children. To redefine marriage to refer simply to any amorous relationship, would be a devastating blow not only to the definition of marriage, but to the very principles on which this nation was established.

Before the rise of the modern welfare state, much social welfare was provided by family, nuclear and extended, and most of the balance was provided by church communities. Meeting others’ needs was generally assumed to be a family duty, a large part of what it meant to be family or kin, or to “belong” to a family. Caring for one another’s kin in such ways, assuming this responsibility in life, was among the quintessential characteristics of family, and it still is – in strong families.

Ultimately, this is why the same-sex marriage debate is so vitally important; redefining “marriage” to include same-sex couples vitiates the very core of duty, responsibility, and sacrifice intrinsic to what marriage really is. If marriage becomes no more than a label of social approbation for an amorous relationship, we will truly have lost perhaps the last significant vestige of hope, the last remaining safe harbor of responsibility-based, natural law morality, the “foundation of the fabric” Washington described, on which he and the rest of the Founders pinned all their efforts and risked their lives. We will have become just another society subject to the will of its government, in this case, a few elitist judges. […]

Natural law morality was largely dominant, assumed even, in the United States until the second half of the 20th Century, when a competing morality began to emerge, known as “political correctness” or “tolerance” or “moral relativism” or “religious humanism” or “secularism” or several other catch phrases, including the “rights-based approach to human rights law.”

This competing morality is diametrically opposed to the duty-based morality of not harming others under natural law. It is an alternate claim of morality focused on one’s rights alone, ignoring, at least with regard to certain behaviors, one’s minimal moral responsibilities not to harm others. It exacerbates the tension over such questions as, “How much harm can we allow without making an action criminal?” or “Do we overlook the harm if the action is between consenting adults?” Arguments originating in this new morality have spawned new concepts such as “victimless crime” and “right of privacy,” and altered old words by giving them new meanings, such as “tolerance.” In doing so, this competing morality tends to lower the standard of expected care and raise the level of actionable harm, but in the aggregate, seemingly minor harms to others – like secondhand smoke, the proliferation of pornography, or consensual casual sex – still have harmful effects in society.

This alternative morality assumes, wrongly, that the “rights” of the people vis-?-vis the government should also be the proper first focus of morality in the interpersonal realm. It says, in effect, “I can do whatever I want as a matter of right, as long as it is not against the law, and laws that unreasonably restrict my freedom to act as I desire need to be repealed or struck down (and please don’t tell me I have moral ‘duties’ beyond what the law requires),” with the overall result of lowering the standards of acceptable social behavior.

It is worth observing that in those cases where modern judicial activism is most apparent, Roe, Lawrence, Goodridge, Romer, In re Marriage Cases, the courts have moved consistently in one direction only – away from the moral duty view of natural law, which requires a degree of self-control due to the unavoidable effects of one’s actions on others, and toward this new version of morality that perceives pure license as a protected moral good. In the wake of this competing morality we now have a novel and virtually unchecked “right of privacy” with which the government may not interfere, invented in Griswold v. Connecticut (in the name of protecting the sanctity and importance of marriage). This novel but seemingly innocuous right of privacy was later expanded in Roe v. Wade and its successors to deny completely the right to life of the unborn in favor of the right of the woman “to control her own body,” regardless of the views of mere state legislatures. In Lawrence the Court expanded the privacy right to include how and with whom one might choose to have sex, without regard for the weight of precedent, such as Bowers v. Hardwick, and again without regard for the expressed “law” created merely by a state legislature of publicly elected officials, in favor of a morally (and judicially) favored sexual license, overlooking the real social consequences and possible valid reasons for which the Texas legislature, like many others, may have enacted its prohibition and satisfied the rational basis test in doing so. In Romer the Supreme Court confirmed the elevation of homosexual practice to the level of full Constitutional protection by striking down a State Constitutional amendment that simply affirmed that homosexuality would not be considered a separate “protected class” under the State Constitution (but not denying homosexuals the same rights all other citizens held). And more recently, in Goodridge and In re Marriage Cases, activist state supreme courts have relied on this same “right of privacy” and “dignity” to actually undermine the importance and sanctity of heterosexual marriage and its ensuing “natural” commitments, responsibilities, and the duties to renewed life in a rising generation.[31] This competing morality also underlies “no-fault divorce,” which virtually swept the country in the 1970s and 80s, removing the duties of husband and wife to each other when those duties run counter to revised personal desires, often licentious in character.

In these critical cases, the courts have raised this version of morality to a Constitutional right, and in the process elevated themselves to a position of ultimate authority, denying the place of the Legislative Branch, much less the formerly supreme people, to speak to such questions, using their definition of the Constitution to defeat the very natural law-based rights it was intended to preserve.

We now witness this alternative morality in efforts to redefine marriage itself, using law in an attempt to reform an institution that precedes law and is a function of natural law. These trends away from natural law morality have been promoted and accelerated by the news and entertainment industries, and by the tendency of judges and lawyers to follow trends in society (or rather, facilitate and enable them) rather than adhering to the legal and moral restraints imposed by natural law.

A common belief is that there is no harm in such actions. The high and rising rates of crime and violence, even among the youth and in schools; child and spouse abuse; the general coarsening of society; the AIDS pandemic and sexually transmitted diseases; drug and alcohol abuse and addictions; as well as the recently much publicized ethical breaches in business practices, indicate that such is not the case. Where people feel that freedom equates to personal license, other people inevitably suffer. […]

Increasingly, the Constitution is being reinterpreted by the Supreme Court and various advocacy groups to resemble the government style of King George, where novel “human rights” of the people are first defined by the government (Supreme Court), dictated (or “granted”) to the people, and then also enforced by the government. And we are incrementally losing something extremely precious in the process – the “natural” freedoms from having the government dictate what rights we have and do not have, and increasingly, a society composed of individuals who perceive fewer and fewer responsibilities toward others. Indeed, to return to the question the founders were addressing, what right do the courts or the Congress have to abandon the “unalienable” premise of the Constitution itself, natural law, and supplant it with a substitute morality? Such powers lie outside the scope of the limited delegation from the people to the government and amount to a rewrite of the Constitution and an abandonment of the very foundation of our independence.

In a true irony, under this “new morality” a great many harms to others and significant costs to society are being legally justified and thus fostered in the name of “human rights,” another phrase whose meaning has been turned on its head by the morality of license.[32] Most significantly for voters in California, these same ideas are now being urged upon us in the form of attempts to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but when a “legal right” is a “moral wrong” under natural law, there will be unavoidable harmful consequences to society. […]

California, this is what is ultimately at stake in Proposition 8. The vitality of our very Constitution lies on the block with marriage. The Founders chose natural law. Some, including the activist judges, appear to wish to undo the Founders’ choice and replace it with their own ideas on morality, and the people of California now face that same choice. But it should be an informed choice, not a matter of political pressures, whims and winds. Who will it be? A unanimous Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, and George Washington, or Oliver Wendell Holmes and a one-vote majority on a divided California Supreme Court? And Arizona, Florida, and yes, Massachusetts, are you listening? […]

Rights, duties, freedoms, virtue, morality, public order, and the general welfare. These concepts can only coexist in a pluralistic society when the individuals comprising the larger society assume a personal responsibility toward others. We humans exist in a web of relationships, families in particular. Natural law morality guided by conscience preserves and strengthens those relationships and social bonds, builds trust, inhibits our selfishness. We need to regain an appreciation of the morality of natural law as the foundation for our law, both domestically and internationally, and the courts must self-police in recognizing the consequent inherent limitations on their powers, or the grand aspirations of the American Declaration will have come to naught.

The People of California need to reassert their natural law rights against a State Supreme Court that has disdained and disregarded them. They need to overrule the Court’s decision to redefine marriage according to a morality that sees only libertine license as good, with no counterbalancing duties and responsibilities. A State, any State, is a poor substitute for responsible self-governance, self-control, and self-discipline. Nothing less than freedom, true freedom, is at stake, for our children and grandchildren, if not for ourselves.

Please, California, enact Proposition 8. Much more than marriage is at stake, and not just on your fair shores. Help protect our children’s and grandchildren’s marriages, and in doing so, help us take back our Constitution from those who were sworn to preserve it but have been its greatest undoing.

I believe that a child needs both a mother and a father to be raised successfully. Obviously, this is not always possible, but in the case of gay marriage, we will be taking that opportunity away from children right from the start. Studies have shown that children need both parents. Here’s a few things I’ve noticed that my three year old daughter has learned from one of us, or how she interacts differently with us:

My daughter loves music. (Mom)

She loves to pretend. (Mom)

She loves to read. (Mom)

She loves to help me cook. (Mom)

She knows all about instruments and musical terms. (Mom)

Mom knows the words to just about every kids song she ever wants.

Dad makes up the words when he doesn’t know them. So does she.

She is much more willing to sit and read a whole book with Mom than with Dad.

When she wakes up grumpy, Dad can silly her out of it.

She cuddles a little bit more with Mom than with Dad.

Mom loves hugs, Dad loves kisses.

She loves to tickle. (Dad)

She loves being silly. (Dad)

She loves to dance. (Dad)

She loves animals, acting like them, and making their sounds. (Dad)

She loves “baseball Dodgers.” (Dad)

She knows the difference between baseball, football, and basketball. (Dad)

Our daughter has learned so many things from each of us that she probably wouldn’t have learned from the other. She plays more actively with Dad than with Mom – partly because Mom is so worn out from taking care of both our girls all the time. Dad can always find some energy for a round of tickles or hide and go seek. Mom can always be lured into reading her a story. Sometimes when she wakes up scared in the middle of the night, she wants Mom. Sometimes she wants Dad. It depends on why she’s scared. Her life is so much more full because she has a mom and a dad. I don’t think I could handle her without my husband to help run out her energy at the end of the day. And I don’t think she would calm down for bed some nights without Mom to help settle her down.

Just as I believe that every child has a right to be born, so I also believe that every child has the right to come into a family with both a mother and a father. How can we deprive these children of something as vital as a parent, without considering their needs? Our babies cannot speak for themselves and tell us what we need. When we think about marriage, we have an obligation not only to think about the adults involved, but about the children they will raise who have no voice.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is one of the things that is bothering me about Proposition 8. I know it is a sensitive issue for a lot of people on both sides. But when people start saying hurtful things to those they disagree with, when people are physically attacked for their beliefs, and when we can’t even put up simple yard signs to express our political views on our private property without vandalism and theft, something’s wrong.

America was founded on principles of freedom. Our forefathers left European countries to embrace a lifestyle where they would have more freedom. Religious freedom, political freedom, freedom of speech. No one should ever be attacked for simply expressing themselves in a calm, concise manner. Disagreement does not justify disrespect.

I have a religious belief that homosexuality is an immoral practice. Under the First Amendment, I am free to believe that. It is part of my religious freedom. I also have the right to express my belief without fear of physical harm ensuing. I also have the right to raise my children to follow my religious beliefs, and not have contradictory beliefs pushed on them at school. Other people are free to make a different choice – to be gay, and to express their preference for that lifestyle. However, why should my daughter go to school and have to listen to her teachers telling her that her religion is wrong? We should be teaching tolerance at schools, but not affirmation of lifestyles that are considered by most religions to be wrong.

I’m not sure when we decided as a society that in order to be tolerant of our differences, we had to embrace and promote them. I can be tolerant of my gay friends’ choice without teaching my daughter that a gay lifestyle is a perfectly normal, acceptable lifestyle that is equal to my heterosexual relationship with my husband. I don’t believe it is equal, and I don’t think it is a behavior we ought to be promoting.

If Proposition 8 fails, then my religious freedoms will be infringed upon. As has been evidenced by cases in Massachusetts, parents will not be notified every time homosexuality is discussed in school. If classrooms are going to discuss sexual behavior, then yes, they have to notify the parents. But if they are simply discussing “families” and homosexuality as a social trend, then they don’t have to notify the parents at all. Don’t believe me? Check out the video in my previous post, where a father was actually sent to jail after requesting that he be notified when such things were going to be discussed in schools. And if California schools aren’t excited to be teaching about homosexuality, then why did the California Teachers Association donate $1 million to the No on 8 campaign? I’m apalled that $1 million, which could have been used for books, classroom supplies, and funding of school programs, was taken from teachers’ dues and donated to a political cause which many teachers don’t support. If I paid dues to a union, I would expect them to represent my interests; if people are bound to disagree on a controversial issue, then maybe that’s not someplace they ought to be donating their money.

And before people start commenting about their “right” to get married, go read the Constitution. There’s nothing mentioned anywhere about marriage. No one’s right to be married is guaranteed by our Constitution.